Constructive criticism - Minimal facts method

[Tassman]

None of this would prevent Paul from viewing Jesus’ resurrection through the lens of his Jewish heritage.

Nor would it support the argument; it’s mere conjecture.

You don’t seem to know the difference between an assumption and a logical inference.
Pharisees held to a physical resurrection from the dead.
Paul was a Pharisee.
Therefore Paul held to a physical resurrection from the dead.

When he is speaking of his desire to take part in the resurrection of the dead in Philippians 3:11 it is in direct context to his Jewish heritage.

No. you are assuming it; there is no logical inference because most scholars (other than apologists) do not consider the gospels to be sufficiently reliable as history from which to make such inferences. Most see the experiences of Paul and other early Christian “witnesses” of the post-resurrection Jesus as hallucinations, not a physical manifestation.

Paul NEVER uses metaschêmatizô in the context of changing clothes. It’s Josephus that allegedly uses metaschêmatizô in that context!

I can’t find a single version that translates allassō in 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 as “we will be exchanged.” Every version I can find from literal to paraphrased all translate it as “we will be changed” or “we will be transformed.”

NET©15:51 Listen, 1 I will tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, 2 but we will all be changed
NIV© 15:51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—
NASB© 15:51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed,
ESV© 15:51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
NLT© 15:51 But let me reveal to you a wonderful secret. We will not all die, but we will all be transformed!
MSG© 15:51 But let me tell you something wonderful, a mystery I’ll probably never fully understand. We’re not all going to die-but we are all going to be changed.
BBE© 15:51 See, I am giving you the revelation of a secret: we will not all come to the sleep of death, but we will all be changed.
NKJV© 15:51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed––
NRSV© 15:51 Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed,
KJV© 15:51 Behold , I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep , but we shall all be changed

From net.bible
Are you arguing all these translations and all the scholars standing behind them are wrong and Carrier is right? Seriously?

The word is translated as “changed”. But what Paul means by “changed” is consistently spelt out in his analogies and this is the proper focus of the argument. This is where he spells out his theology, namely that the means of change is achieved by the discarding of the old and the putting on of the new (to concentrate on the garment analogy). In short, the exchanging of one for the other - “change” and “exchange” are not mutually exclusive.

Carrier and scholars in agreement with him make a good case that it equally well refers to “exchanged” (apologist NT Wright acknowledges this as a valid interpretation) and it fits better with Pauline theology in total. It also eliminates absurdities such as placing a new garment over the top of the old garment, in the garments analogy.

More to the point, Paul at NO time claims that “change” refers to the one body becoming the other. Never! In fact, as Carrier argues, “Paul conspicuously omits saying these are the same body on any of these occasions--or anywhere at all. And Paul never says the one body becomes the other”.

Rather, the new (spiritual) body grows within us just as our outward body is dying and ultimately returns to the dust. 2 Corinthians (NKJV) 16 "Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day".

And I don’t have a problem with that. I’ve never argued Paul explicitly states that. I’m smart enough to know that some things are implied and need not be explicitly stated. Paul does, however, explicitly state something close: ”[Jesus] will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory” – (Philippians 3:21, NASB)

You are a dodge artist and troll, Tassman. I’m not going to continue to play your little game and repeat myself. You’ve once AGAIN glossed over ALL the arguments and evidence that refute you and Carrier and reasserted your argument as though I’ve made no argument against it. I’ll take your ignoring of the arguments and evidence above this time as a concession you recognize Carrier’s interpretation of the husk representing the “outer body” and your after the fact amended version of his argument where you argue the seed coat represents the outer body and erroneously assume Paul had a very sophisticated understanding of agriculture have both been refuted.

You haven’t rebutted any arguments. You have presented exegesis from an unnamed source attempting to harmonize the opposing views between the resurrection body vis-à-vis the early epistles writers and the much later gospel tradition.

In short, apologetics!

You have made no argument, merely attempted to “put me right” in your typically offensive way - that in itself being a telling indication of defensiveness in a weak man.

No. Paul is referring to his accomplishments in the flesh in regards to his Jewish heritage as rubbish. He’s not calling his Jewish heritage rubbish. He clearly sees the world around him through the lens of his Jewish heritage as I provided substantial evidence for in post 190which, surprise-surprise, you utterly ignored.

And, once again, what are your sources here for this exegesis from the original Greek? I've previously provided ample evidnece of the all pervasive influence of Hellenism throughout the Roman empire.

How about, for instance, Carrier’s mistaken notion that the chaff/husk represents the “outer body” in the seed analogy when there was no husk in the analogy.

The seed analogy is not intended to be an agricultural treatise. Its intention is to make the theological point that outer part of the seed is discarded to allow the germ to grow. The meaning is clear and in keeping with ALL of Paul’s analogies about discarding the old (garments, tabernacles etc) to enable the new.

And you need to explain why we should interpret Paul through the lens of Josephus when Josephus was not a contemporary of Paul and we have evidence that in a similar time period words can take on different meanings. Oh, wait…you don’t have an explanation for this because Carrier needs Josephus to even get the argument out of the starting blocks.

The issue is word usage as expounded by scholars capable of translating the original text and who are familiar with and understand the culture and mores of the period. Who is your source again?

I blame you because you’ve needlessly assigned a contradiction in terms to Paul that isn’t there then stand back and say, “Blame Paul, not me.”

The doctrine is Paul’s doctrine not mine.

No reputable historian wholly discards the testimony of the Gospels/Acts (or even the Gospel of Peter for that matter). It’s only the over eager skeptics like you that do.

Incorrect! There is very little reliable history in the gospels. “Most contemporary scholars agree that from a purely historical perspective Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of Pontius Pilate” – Raymond E Brown in his ‘The Death of the Messiah’. And that’s about it.

Re the resurrection appearances, the majority of scholars see the experiences of Paul and other early Christians as visions or hallucinations. This is the most probable explanation. Only apologists think otherwise.

Dead serious. Carrier proposes a two body hypothesis. The traditional Christian position proposes a one body hypothesis. The two body hypothesis unnecessarily posits a second body to the equation when the one body hypothesis accounts for all the evidence with at least as much, if not greater, power and scope. Thus we can eliminate the two body hypothesis on the principle of parsimony alone.

You cannot eliminate a doctrine that existed during the first 40+ plus years of Christianity. The one body hypothesis is not mentioned by ANY early Christian writer including Paul. It does not appear until several decades after Jesus’ death in Mark’s empty tomb story. From then on the initially simple account of Mark is increasingly embellished by successive gospel writers, none of whom were eyewitnesses of the events.

Actually, there is no reason to think that the original, pre-gospel post-mortem Jesus experiences, if they existed at all, were any different to those of modern Christians who claim to experience Jesus in their lives today.

You go girl frien’

Pardon??

Well, in the end each reader will have to decide for themselves but in my opinion you’ve been royally spanked in this thread. The fact you ignore piles of pertinent arguments and evidence is itself evidence enough of that.

Keep telling yourself that.

Not certain but well grounded. “Buried” implies Jewish burial customs which included a tomb.

No, it is not well grounded. This is conjecture on your part based on a presupposition.

Again this is simply hand waiving the testimony of the Gospels. Not to mention there is evidence outside the NT that exceptions were made in terms of allowing burial rights. Secondly, Joseph of Arimathea is a Red Herring at this point. Thirdly, even if Jesus was buried in some common grave it does not negate Paul’s implication that where ever Jesus was buried his body was no longer there, that his body was absent from the place of burial.

It is stating a fact. There is no evidence apart from the gospel tradition that Joseph of Arimathea or his tomb existed. And Paul never says that Jesus body “was no longer where it was buried” and no amount perceived “implications” can alter this fact. The most parsimonious explanation is that Paul (and the other early Christian writers) believed the body was still in place. Why wouldn’t they?

You are at least predictable. I’ll give you that much.

Actually I’ve provided plenty of arguments and evidence which you generally tend to ignore. I’ve also given the sources in which I’ve grounded those arguments. But unlike me you have blatantly plagiarized someone and then lied about it plus named dropped some other notable scholars.

You have provided NO sources for your arguments other than your airy “hundreds of scholar’s” – IOW, no sources at all.

By the way NT Wright, as far as I can tell, didn’t consider Carrier’s interpretation as a valid argument. From what I could tell Wright implied even if one assumed a view similar to Carrier’s that Wright’s salient point that the new body will be more than the present one still stands.

This is precisely the point Carrier is arguing. The new body was a “spiritual body” i.e. more than the reanimated corpse of the old body.

As I mentioned earlier nowhere on your hero’s CV does he list any special training in Greek. Yet you claim Carrier is an “expert in the language.” What’s more is that you seem to want to argue he alone is a weighty enough authority to overturn the weight of the hundreds of scholars that have translated the various versions of the Bible many of which are relatively modern. Strange coming from someone that appeals to the majority opinion of scholarship ad nauseam.

"Hero"??? And around we go: Carrier is a recognized authority of the period (hence my repetition of his CV) with knowledge of Koine Greek (which you lack) and his arguments are supported by many other scholars, some of whom I’ve named (unlike you) only to have you accuse me of “name dropping”.

That you want me to be so you can feel better about your own intellectual dishonesty is not grounds to accuse me of being dishonest no matter how upset you are.

Yes, that bit is mine. I’ll also note you don’t seem to know how to respond so you ignore it. What’s the matter? Doesn’t Carrier have something addressing it which you can copy and paste?

You can believe whatever you like. However, let’s not forget I provided EVIDENCE that you blatantly plagiarized Carrier in post 258. Please extend me the same courtesy if you are going to accuse me of the same. Otherwise shut your pie hole.

”For ease of quoting him.” You didn’t just quote him or base your argument on him. You plagiarized him. Deal with it.

You know, Tassman, all you are doing is digging the hole deeper. All you’d have to do is say something like, “My bad, I shouldn’t have plagiarized Carrier” and all this would go away. In fact you'd probably gain some credibility back by doing that. But, no. You have to dig in, deny it, lie about it, try to wiggle your way out of it. To make matters even worse you try to fight back by implying, without any evidence, that I’ve plagiarized someone too. It just speaks to how intellectually dishonest you really are. It’s quite sad

Five paragraphs in an attempt to discredit me. You would be better served in attempting to rebut the argument. And STILL no response to my much repeated request for your sources. You’re a case, Juice.

[Adrift]

I never asked for Roman records. The gospels are not examples of independent attestation.

Ah, you want evidence... but not that evidence. Gotcha.

Yes, Embarrassing to the Sanhedrin, but the Sanhedrin wasn't telling the story, were they? No the story was being told by their opponents who would have an interest in embarrassing them. As I said before, the historiograghic criteria your trying to insinuate, doesn't apply here.

I wasn't insinuating it would have been embarrassing to the Sanhedrin.

And yet there is not a shred of evidence that 1.) the conversation ever took place

Except for those texts, that you out of hand don't except... got it.

or 2.) if it did their is certainly no evidence to support your version of it.

Its not really my version, as it came along some 2000 years before I was born, but okay.

Mark tells us Joseph "asked for Jesus body" As does Matthew and Luke (probably because Matthew and Luke drew heavily from Mark)

Uh-huh. And?

John doesn't even tell us anything about a conversation between Joseph and Pilate. All John says is that 19:38 "With Pilates permission, he came and took the body" Now, if we grant for the sake of argument that such a conversation took place and that Joseph actually existed and that he was a good Jew then we would need to assume he asked to bury Jesus in one of the two criminal cemetaries. Not near them.

?

After these things Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him permission.

Sounds like a conversation to me.

"Two cemeteries were prepared for different executions, but afterwards they were interned in their family tomb"

Totally irrelevant because
1.) Jesus would have had to have been buried in one of the criminal cemeteries (not near them) and only AFTER " the flesh of the corpse was
consumed' would his bones be "interned in their family tomb" Neither of those are Joseph's tomb. Joseph is neither family or criminal and his
tomb is not, by your own accounting, in either cemetery.
2.) If Jesus is not buried in either cemetery, then the tractate is irrelevant. And if Jesus is buried in one of the cemetaries, as per the tractate, then
he's not buried in Joseph's tomb.

I'm taking it you didn't actually read anything I wrote, or if you did, you just ignored it. Ah. I remember now why I rarely post in this part of the forum. WIN AT ALL COST!!! LOGIC BE DAMNED!!!

"The criminal grave in Jerusalem was maintained by the Sanhedrin.( and you know this how?)

but two cemeteries were prepared by the court

Are... are you even reading the tractates that you're citing?

First, the very act of burying Jesus in his own tomb, puts Joseph on the wrong side of Jewish law.

No it doesn't.

Second I'm not sure how Pilate could or would be able to provide exceptions to Jewish law(Was he also on the Sanhedrin?)

You apparently missed it the first time, Tractate Semahot 2:9 "No rites whatsoever should be denied those who were executed by the state."

You have absolutely no basis for any of this. Not one shred of evidence to support it.Not even the Gospels. If you're trying to make up your own gospel, your about two millennia too late.

Dude... Seriously? You're making yourself out to look like a fool. If I were you, I'd stop while I was behind.

[Juice]

No. you are assuming it; there is no logical inference because most scholars (other than apologists) do not consider the gospels to be sufficiently reliable as history from which to make such inferences.

You still don’t know the difference between a logical inference and an assumtion do you. Take the time to educate yourself on this before you come back to me.

Further your objection fails anyway. The first premise Pharisees held to a physical resurrection from the dead can be established by appealing to evidence outside the Gospels such as Midrash. The second premise Paul was a Pharisee can be established by appealing to Paul’s letters. In neither case do we need to appeal to the Gospels thus your objection fails. We have a cogent argument to infer Paul held to a physical resurrection from the dead.

The word is translated as “changed”. But what Paul means by “changed” is consistently spelt out in his analogies and this is the proper focus of the argument. This is where he spells out his theology, namely that the means of change is achieved by the discarding of the old and the putting on of the new (to concentrate on the garment analogy). In short, the exchanging of one for the other - “change” and “exchange” are not mutually exclusive.

If Paul meant “exchanged” in the context Carrier wants it to mean surely you could find at least one translation that agrees with him and renders 1 Corinthians 15:51 as “exchanged.”

Carrier and scholars in agreement with him make a good case that it equally well refers to “exchanged” (apologist NT Wright acknowledges this as a valid interpretation) and it fits better with Pauline theology in total. It also eliminates absurdities such as placing a new garment over the top of the old garment, in the garments analogy.

You keep referring to NT Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God as though you have read it and are in a position to critique it. Have you read it? Both GioD and I would like to know.

It’s hardly an absurdity to place a new garment over top an old one. In fact I’ll bet you’ve done it yourself. Haven’t you ever tried on a shirt in a store to see if it fits by quickly pulling it overtop your old shirt? Haven’t you ever purchased a new coat and worn it over old clothing? When construction workers buy a new pair of overalls put them on over top old clothing. When police or military personnel put on their body armor they put it on over top their existing uniform.

More to the point, Paul at NO time claims that “change” refers to the one body becoming the other. Never!

Yeah, you keep saying that. Except he does. ”[Jesus] will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory” – (Philippians 3:21)

Rather, the new (spiritual) body grows within us just as our outward body is dying and ultimately returns to the dust. 2 Corinthians (NKJV) 16 "Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day".

Viewing 2 Corinthians 4:16 through Carrier’s two body interpretation forces us to think Paul is implying the immortal imperishable “inner man” is in need of daily renewal. Why would the immortal and imperishable “spiritual body” need daily renewal? That’s absurd.

Paul also says a few verses later, ”Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” - (2 Corinthians 5:17, NASB)

Under Carrier’s two body hypothesis we are forced to think Paul meant herein 5:17 the “exchange” of the “old” body (i.e. the corpse) for the “new” body (i.e. the “spiritual body”) took place at conversion, not at the point of resurrection. That’s absurd too.

You haven’t rebutted any arguments.

Earth to Tassman, come in Tassman. Earth to Tassman, come in Tassman. Are you there, Tassman?

And, once again, what are your sources here for this exegesis from the original Greek? I've previously provided ample evidnece of the all pervasive influence of Hellenism throughout the Roman empire.

What??? What the flip does Greek have to with this? You have yet to address the substantial evidence I gave in post 190 that clearly shows Paul viewed things through the lens of his Jewish heritage. I’ll take your consistent avoidance of this as you conceding the matter.

The seed analogy is not intended to be an agricultural treatise. Its intention is to make the theological point that outer part of the seed is discarded to allow the germ to grow. The meaning is clear and in keeping with ALL of Paul’s analogies about discarding the old (garments, tabernacles etc) to enable the new.

Finally we agree on something – i.e. the seed analogy was not intended to be an agricultural treatise. It was intended to be a simple analogy given by a person to people who all had, by our standards, an unsophisticated understanding of agriculture. Put a bare seed in the ground, add some water, and with the help of God up comes a glorious plant – that would have been Paul’s (and his audiences’) elementary understanding. Jesus’ dead body goes in the ground and with the help of God comes up out of the ground the glorious resurrected Jesus. Yet, you interpret the analogy through the assumption that Paul was writing an agricultural treatise to an audience that would have had a sophisticated understanding of agriculture, as sophisticated as ours. When the evidence suggests they didn’t. Heck you even use modern terminology like “germ” when Paul simply says “bare seed” and makes no reference whatsoever to anything that would be understood as the “germ” or seed casing (not to be confused with the husk/chaff).

The issue is word usage as expounded by scholars capable of translating the original text and who are familiar with and understand the culture and mores of the period. Who is your source again?

Like I said, you don’t have a coherent explanation for why anyone should interpret Paul through the lens of Josephus when Josephus was not a contemporary of Paul and we have evidence that in a similar time period between Paul and Josephus (40-50 years) words can take on different meanings.

The doctrine is Paul’s doctrine not mine.

No. The contradiction that the raised body was neither a spirit nor physical is yours. Stop pretending it isn’t.

Incorrect! There is very little reliable history in the gospels. “Most contemporary scholars agree that from a purely historical perspective Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of Pontius Pilate” – Raymond E Brown in his ‘The Death of the Messiah’. And that’s about it.

That’s quite a bit actually. This just affirms my point, anyway, that no reputable historian wholly discards the NT, it’s only the over eager skeptics like you that do. Thank you.

Let’s not forget this is only what Brown asserts most contemporary scholars agree on which doesn’t mean the rest is unreliable. It just means there isn’t the same level of agreement on other things according to Brown.

You cannot eliminate a doctrine that existed during the first 40+ plus years of Christianity. The one body hypothesis is not mentioned by ANY early Christian writer including Paul.

Of course I can. I can eliminate it on the principle of parsimony. Your faulty assumption is that that a one body doctrine did not exist during the time of Paul when of course it did among the Pharisees.

No, it is not well grounded. This is conjecture on your part based on a presupposition.

You don’t know the difference between a presupposition and an inference either do you. Paul and Jesus were both Jews. When Paul writes Jesus was “buried” it implies Jewish burial rights which included a tomb. Not a presupposition, but an inference.

And Paul never says that Jesus body “was no longer where it was buried” and no amount perceived “implications” can alter this fact.

Paul doesn’t need to say it. He implies it. Just like I would be implying my daughter was no longer in the place she went to sleep if I said I saw her the next morning in the kitchen. Stop dancing around the logic of this argument.

You have provided NO sources for your arguments other than your airy “hundreds of scholar’s” – IOW, no sources at all.

As predictable as clockwork.

This is precisely the point Carrier is arguing. The new body was a “spiritual body” i.e. more than the reanimated corpse of the old body.

But then N.T. Wright is not affirming as valid the two body hypothesis in that case as Carrier and you claim he is. He is reaffirming the view the new body will be more than the old one even if one has a view similar to Carrier’s.

"Hero"??? And around we go: Carrier is a recognized authority of the period (hence my repetition of his CV) with knowledge of Koine Greek (which you lack) and his arguments are supported by many other scholars, some of whom I’ve named (unlike you) only to have you accuse me of “name dropping”.

I don’t doubt Carrier has knowledge of Greek. Lots of people can be said to have knowledge of Greek. What I’m doubting is your claim that Carrier is an “expert in the language.” The salient question here is, are his translations of the text supported by real experts in the language? If so by who and in which work?

[Tassman]

You still don’t know the difference between a logical inference and an assumtion do you. Take the time to educate yourself on this before you come back to me.

Further your objection fails anyway. The first premise Pharisees held to a physical resurrection from the dead can be established by appealing to evidence outside the Gospels such as Midrash. The second premise Paul was a Pharisee can be established by appealing to Paul’s letters. In neither case do we need to appeal to the Gospels thus your objection fails. We have a cogent argument to infer Paul held to a physical resurrection from the dead.

You are assuming that Paul’s conversion and Jesus’ Damascene revelation didn’t impact on his beliefs (despite his statements to the contrary), nor have you taken into account the pervasive impact of Hellenism – all of which has been discussed at length earlier. How you forget. And resorting to name calling says more about the perpetrator than the victim.

If Paul meant “exchanged” in the context Carrier wants it to mean surely you could find at least one translation that agrees with him and renders 1 Corinthians 15:51 as “exchanged.”

We are talking about the interpretative exegesis, rather than the translation, of the verbs allagêsometha (literally "we will be exchanged) and," metaschêmatizô (literally “changing - as in clothes”). Carrier is qualified to provide such exegesis; you are not. Nor do you provide a source of who is despite repeated requests.

You keep referring to NT Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God as though you have read it and are in a position to critique it. Have you read it? Both GioD and I would like to know.

I was citing Wright from Carrier’s FAQ, as I have said many times, as follows: “Wright concludes that even if that's what Paul meant, our "new body" would still be "more than the present one." That is absolutely clear and unambiguous: Wright is saying point blank that this interpretation is acceptable even if not certain and that even 1 Corinthians 15 can mean 'exchange'. All Wright wants to add is that even if we accept this, Paul is still saying the new body will be substantially better than the one we have now, which is exactly my view. Thus, Wright clearly comes as close to conceding my argument as he can without actually endorsing it”.

It’s hardly an absurdity to place a new garment over top an old one. In fact I’ll bet you’ve done it yourself. Haven’t you ever tried on a shirt in a store to see if it fits by quickly pulling it overtop your old shirt? Haven’t you ever purchased a new coat and worn it over old clothing? When construction workers buy a new pair of overalls put them on over top old clothing. When police or military personnel put on their body armor they put it on over top their existing uniform.

So by your exegesis (i.e. a person who cannot understand the original language) the “glorious new body fit for heaven” can be compared with “trying on a new shirt over one’s old shirt”. Yes, that makes sense of Paul’s analogy.

Yeah, you keep saying that. Except he does. ”[Jesus] will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory” – (Philippians 3:21)

And round and round we go. I have several times provided Carrier’s exegesis on the passage: “what Paul means in Philippians 3:21, where he says our bodies will be changed, using the same verb Josephus does to mean changing clothes (metaschêmatizô). Since we must interpret that passage in light of Paul's others, the garment analogy is most probably intended, hence changing bodies here does not mean transformation, but the same thing as changing clothes”. Whose exegesis are you basing your assertion on?

Viewing 2 Corinthians 4:16 through Carrier’s two body interpretation forces us to think Paul is implying the immortal imperishable “inner man” is in need of daily renewal. Why would the immortal and imperishable “spiritual body” need daily renewal? That’s absurd.

Paul also says a few verses later, ”Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” - (2 Corinthians 5:17, NASB)

Under Carrier’s two body hypothesis we are forced to think Paul meant herein 5:17 the “exchange” of the “old” body (i.e. the corpse) for the “new” body (i.e. the “spiritual body”) took place at conversion, not at the point of resurrection. That’s absurd too.

Whose argument is this? Name your source.

Carrier’s argument is: “Besides his plain statement of the fact in 1 Corinthians 15, on every other occasion when Paul speaks of the resurrection body he says the same thing or something that can be so interpreted. He responds to Christian worries about aging and dying (or being killed) by reminding them that "though our man outside is being destroyed, yet our inner inside is being renewed day by day," hence in 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:2: “We look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal. For we know that if our earthly house of a tabernacle is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal, in the heavens. For in this [domicile] we groan, yearning to put on [like a coat] our domicile from heaven”.

What??? What the flip does Greek have to with this? You have yet to address the substantial evidence I gave in post 190 that clearly shows Paul viewed things through the lens of his Jewish heritage. I’ll take your consistent avoidance of this as you conceding the matter.

Your argument was wrong – tortuous and strained. Once again, you are assuming that Paul’s conversion and Jesus’ Damascene revelation didn’t impact on his beliefs (despite his statements to the contrary), nor taken into account the pervasive impact of Hellenism throughout the Roman empire – all of which has been discussed at length earlier. For you (i.e. your source) to say this is wrong and attempt to counter it with a self-serving argument motivated by apologetics fools nobody.

Finally we agree on something – i.e. the seed analogy was not intended to be an agricultural treatise. It was intended to be a simple analogy given by a person to people who all had, by our standards, an unsophisticated understanding of agriculture. Put a bare seed in the ground, add some water, and with the help of God up comes a glorious plant – that would have been Paul’s (and his audiences’) elementary understanding. Jesus’ dead body goes in the ground and with the help of God comes up out of the ground the glorious resurrected Jesus. Yet, you interpret the analogy through the assumption that Paul was writing an agricultural treatise to an audience that would have had a sophisticated understanding of agriculture, as sophisticated as ours. When the evidence suggests they didn’t. Heck you even use modern terminology like “germ” when Paul simply says “bare seed” and makes no reference whatsoever to anything that would be understood as the “germ” or seed casing (not to be confused with the husk/chaff).

Nope! It doesn’t matter whether or not Paul understood the mechanics of agriculture. The seed analogy has the same basic meaning as all of Paul’s other analogies, i.e. the old is discarded to enable the new.

Like I said, you don’t have a coherent explanation for why anyone should interpret Paul through the lens of Josephus when Josephus was not a contemporary of Paul and we have evidence that in a similar time period between Paul and Josephus (40-50 years) words can take on different meanings.

More like 30 to 40 years actually and Josephus’ usage of it is concrete evidence of how metaschêmatizô was understood (i.e. to exchange). You have no evidence that the meaning changed in the interim. Nor are you familiar with the Greek of the New Testament, so, who are you cribbing your argument from again?

No. The contradiction that the raised body was neither a spirit nor physical is yours. Stop pretending it isn’t.

Paul’s’ doctrine refers to the “spiritual body” (his term not mine) rather than an incorporeal spirit. How you forget. We’ve been through this ad nauseam. Are you attempting to bore me into submission?

That’s quite a bit actually. This just affirms my point, anyway, that no reputable historian wholly discards the NT, it’s only the over eager skeptics like you that do. Thank you.

Let’s not forget this is only what Brown asserts most contemporary scholars agree on which doesn’t mean the rest is unreliable. It just means there isn’t the same level of agreement on other things according to Brown.

It means exactly what Raymond E Brown says it means namely: “Most contemporary scholars agree that from a purely historical perspective Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of Pontius Pilate” – and that’s it. The rest of the NT (including all the miracles) is not considered to be historical.

Of course I can. I can eliminate it on the principle of parsimony. Your faulty assumption is that that a one body doctrine did not exist during the time of Paul when of course it did among the Pharisees.

But, apart from unsupported presuppositions, the one body resurrection is not known to have existed among the early Christians; there’s no evidence that it did, merely assumptions based on the NT being accurate history. Nor was it universal among all Jews.

You don’t know the difference between a presupposition and an inference either do you. Paul and Jesus were both Jews. When Paul writes Jesus was “buried” it implies Jewish burial rights which included a tomb. Not a presupposition, but an inference.

Not necessarily for criminals executed for treason.

As always, your arguments rest on logical inferences derived from premises assumed to be true without sufficient evidence that they are true. The gospels claim to provide facts; the pre-gospel Christian writers only ever provide inferences. Could it be because the gospel “facts” were contrary to those of the pre-gospel epistles, but you assume that they were not? This is the obvious explanation.

Paul doesn’t need to say it. He implies it. Just like I would be implying my daughter was no longer in the place she went to sleep if I said I saw her the next morning in the kitchen. Stop dancing around the logic of this argument.

The analogy fails; see my previous demolition of it.

As predictable as clockwork.
But then N.T. Wright is not affirming as valid the two body hypothesis in that case as Carrier and you claim he is. He is reaffirming the view the new body will be more than the old one even if one has a view similar to Carrier’s.

See above.

I don’t doubt Carrier has knowledge of Greek. Lots of people can be said to have knowledge of Greek. What I’m doubting is your claim that Carrier is an “expert in the language.” The salient question here is, are his translations of the text supported by real experts in the language? If so by who and in which work?

Irrelevant – unless you are saying that Carrier has insufficient understanding of the original language for his purposes. Are you saying this? And what real “experts in the language” are you using as your source? I have asked umpteen times.

[sp1ke0kill3r]

"Not certain but well grounded. “Buried” implies Jewish burial customs which included a tomb. " -Juice
Implication is not evidence. burial means burial whether by Romans or Jews. ( How would they have described it if the Romans buried him?) Now if Jesus was buried by the Jews, there's no reason to think they wouldn't have followed The Talmud and buried him in one of two cemetaries for criminals. So either they followed their customs or they did not. If they did, Jesus was not buried in Joseph's tomb or Jospeh was a criminal and his "tomb" was in the criminals cemetary.
However, the crucial question is why would Pilate release the body of a man crucified for what amounted to treason. What Reason does he have to risk Caesar's wrath?

[OU812]

[/B]

The so-called “minimal facts approach” is only practiced by Apologists and is no more than special pleading in favor of Christian scholarship. All it offers are minimal “facts” whilst arbitrarily excluding more controversial details such as the authorship, dating and reliability of the texts.

Seasanctuary , who btw is NOT an 'apologist'........

.......would like a WORD with YOU.

T
Of the above 6 “facts” the only one we can be reasonably certain of is Jesus’ execution by crucifixion. Even the “early belief in resurrection” can be queried in that the original belief was probably that of Jesus' spiritual body resurrecting, not the fleshly body as referred to in the gospels. Hence no “empty tomb”. Jesus mortal body decomposed like that of any other body.

Out-of-date "scholarship" says WHAT, again?

[Tassman]

[/B]

Seasanctuary , who btw is NOT an 'apologist'........

.......would like a WORD with YOU.

Really! Well here I am.

Out-of-date "scholarship" says WHAT, again?

The minimal facts method is primarily attributed to Dr. Gary Habermas and he lists a number of “facts” which he alleges are mostly agreed upon by the majority of scholars. But he is wrong. To take just one so-called “fact”: The empty tomb:

Habermas argues that the "fact" of the empty tomb proves the resurrection of Jesus. Unfortunately for his argument there is nothing whatsoever factual about the existence of the empty tomb - or even that there was a tomb. There’s certailny no evidence that early Christians knew of its existence. And there is no evidence that Paul and the other pre-gospel writers knew of it. There is certainly no church or shrine located at the site OR evidence that there ever was one, as one would expect as a commemoration of the dramatic miracle upon which Christianity is based.

In actuality, the only “fact” about the empty tomb is that there is no evidence for its existence outside of the gospels. We simply do not know there was an empty tomb. It is a faith-based belief. In short, this“fact” is not agreed upon by the majority of scholars as Habermas claims.

[Adrift]

[/B]

Seasanctuary , who btw is NOT an 'apologist'........

.......would like a WORD with YOU.

Yeah, Vermes has something to say about it too.

Jesus the Jew: a historian's reading of the Gospels by Geza Vermes

But in the end, when every argument has been considered and weighed, the only conclusion acceptable to the historian must be that the opinions of the orthodox, the liberal sympathizer and the critical agnostic alike -- and even perhaps of the disciples themselves -- are simply interpretations of the one disconcerting fact: namely that the women who set out to pay their last respects to Jesus found to their consternation, not a body, but an empty tomb.

© source where applicable

[Juice]

Not certain but well grounded. “Buried” implies Jewish burial customs which included a tomb.

Implication is not evidence.

It’s a logical inference based on evidence. Tassman can't seem to argue against it, let's see if you can do any better.

burial means burial whether by Romans or Jews.

I disagree.

"Brethren , I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.” – (Acts 2:29, NASB)

The Greek word here in Acts 2:29 for buried is thaptō. It clearly implies Jewish burial rights and a tomb. In fact, thaptō appears eleven times in the NT and it is always used in the context of Jews burring Jews. Never in the context of a Roman burring a Jew.

It’s the same word Paul uses for burial in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5…

”For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried [thaptō], and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.” (NASB)

Like I said. Jewish burial rights, which included a tomb, is implied.

Now if Jesus was buried by the Jews, there's no reason to think they wouldn't have followed The Talmud and buried him in one of two cemetaries for criminals.

Two things. One, you are appealing to the Talmud a source written much later than the first century and may not accurately represent 1st century practice. Surely if you can appeal to the Talmud I can appeal to the Gospels.

Secondly, even if we grant the Talmud as a reliable source for 1st century Jewish practice how does this falsify the claim Jesus was buried in accordance to Jewish burial rights which included a tomb?

So either they followed their customs or they did not. If they did, Jesus was not buried in Joseph's tomb or Jospeh was a criminal and his "tomb" was in the criminals cemetary.

In either case, Jesus was buried in a tomb.

However, the crucial question is why would Pilate release the body of a man crucified for what amounted to treason. What Reason does he have to risk Caesar's wrath?

Didn’t you just say “implication is not evidence”? What evidence is there that Jesus was crucified for treason? Let's see you establish that claim without having to appeal to the historical realiability of the Gospels.

[OU812]

In either case, Jesus was buried in a tomb.

Didn’t you just say “implication is not evidence”? What evidence is there that Jesus was crucified for treason? Let's see you establish that claim without having to appeal to the historical reliability of the Gospels.

In other words...... "ooops!!!"


Also, it's really amusing to hear Tassman call the background context of Paul's beliefs - that is, First-Century Judaism - "conjecture".

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, Vermes has something to say about it too.

Jesus the Jew: a historian's reading of the Gospels by Geza Vermes

But in the end, when every argument has been considered and weighed, the only conclusion acceptable to the historian must be that the opinions of the orthodox, the liberal sympathizer and the critical agnostic alike -- and even perhaps of the disciples themselves -- are simply interpretations of the one disconcerting fact: namely that the women who set out to pay their last respects to Jesus found to their consternation, not a body, but an empty tomb.

© source where applicable

Unfortunately, this select quote does not take into account Vermes conclusions on the miracles attributed to Christ and Resurrection. He basically does not consider the empty tomb as sufficient evidence to support the Resurrection of Christ.

[Adrift]

Unfortunately, this select quote does not take into account Vermes conclusions on the miracles attributed to Christ and Resurrection. He basically does not consider the empty tomb as sufficient evidence to support the Resurrection of Christ.

Thankfully that's not the point I was trying to prove.

[shunyadragon]

Thankfully that's not the point I was trying to prove.

There is nothing to prove here, this is history. The point of many apologist arguments is that the empty tomb is evidence for the Resurrection. Vermes does not hold that view.

[Adrift]

Vermes does not hold that view.

That's precisely why I cited him.

[Tassman]

Yeah, Vermes has something to say about it too.

Jesus the Jew: a historian's reading of the Gospels by Geza Vermes

But in the end, when every argument has been considered and weighed, the only conclusion acceptable to the historian must be that the opinions of the orthodox, the liberal sympathizer and the critical agnostic alike -- and even perhaps of the disciples themselves -- are simply interpretations of the one disconcerting fact: namely that the women who set out to pay their last respects to Jesus found to their consternation, not a body, but an empty tomb.

© source where applicable

Indeed, Vermes has a lot to say about Jesus. He concludes that Jesus was not divine but a mortal teacher, helper and healer and who was venerated by his followers and that his authentic teachings were those proclaimed by those who knew him best, namely his brother James and the members of the Jerusalem Church. Furthermore, according to Ehrman, the views of the later Ebonite’s (who condemned Paul as an apostate) probably represented the continuation of Jesus’ original teachings not Paul or the gospel writers.

Vermes says much the same in ‘The Authentic Gospel of Jesus’: Namely, that Jesus was a 1st-century Jewish prophet with no claims to divinity. He suggests that, properly understood, the historical Jesus is a figure that Jews should find familiar and attractive. The “historical Jesus, however, is so different from the Christ of faith that Christians may well want to rethink the fundamentals of their faith”. Epilogue p. 398-417 (cited in a review”.

RE the empty tomb, if you refer to an earlier post I said that although the majority of non-apologist scholars do not think there is sufficient evidence for its existence, those that do consider a natural explanation to be more probable than a miraculous one. Vermes is in the latter category.